From the Petition
Those who favor redefining marriage as the union of any two or more persons see the institution primarily from an adult-centered perspective. From that view, marriage’s primary purpose is to endorse and legitimize the love and commitment between persons. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting) (describing competing visions). The adult-centric view holds that because the love of a same-sex couple is just as good as that of an opposite-sex couple (“love is love”), the government’s refusal to recognize that love as a marriage is discrimination.
Those who wish to retain the opposite-sex marriage model believe the government has no legitimate interest in formally recognizing mere loving relationships, whether opposite-sex or same-sex. Their marriage view is biologically based, primarily child-centered, and has a conjugal meaning, id., with a primary purpose of uniting every child to his or her biological mother and father whenever possible, and by a mother and father when not possible.
The difference in these views is not that one side promotes equality, justice, and tolerance, while the other endorses inequality, injustice, and intolerance. Rather, it is a difference in understanding about what the marriage institution is—or ought to be.
People can disagree. But the question for this Court is not which view is better; it is whether the Constitution compels states to adopt either definition.
Petition is here: